ALL ABOUT LAW OF INJUNCTION UNDER ORDER 39 CPC

Order 39, Code of Civil Procedure

What is an Injunction?

An injunction is an equitable remedy where an individual is commanded by a court – having authority over that individual – to perform or cease to perform a specific action, provided, if the court were not to intervene would cause irreparable harm to the status quo of the individuals involved in the case.

The aim of temporary injunctions in the Indian law is to protect a party to the suit against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favor at the trial.

Temporary Injunction

Order 39, Rule 1 talks about the cases in which the court may grant a temporary injunction as a statutory relief-

• In the case of property dispute, if the property in question is under a risk of being wasted damaged or alienated or wrongfully sold by an individual involved in the suit.
• If an individual threatened or displayed intention of removing or disposing off of his property with a motive to defraud his creditors. This is specific to the defendant only.
• If the plaintiff is threatened – by the defendant – to be dispossessed or injured in the context of the property dispute under question.
• If the defendant were to commit a breach of peace or contract. The aforementioned ground is also highlighted in Order 39, Rule 2 of the CPC, 1908.
• Lastly, the court may issue an injunction if it is of the opinion that it would be an act in the interest of justice.

Order 39, Rule 2 talks about injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach-

• In any case for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, the plaintiff may apply to the court for temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained arising out of same contract or relates to the same property or right.
• The court may grant an injunction by order as the court thinks fit.

Order 39, Rule 2-A talks about the non-compliance of an individual with regards to an injunction, they are-

• It mandates the detainment of that individual in civil prison for not more than three months in case of disobedience of any injunction granted
• Furthermore, it warrants the attachment of property of that guilty individual for not more than a year. However, if the delinquency were to continue, the property may be sold.

Order 39, Rule 3 talks about direct notice which is to be issued to opposite party before granting injunction-

In normal cases, the court is required to issue a notice to the opposite party regarding the application of injunction, but through Order 39, Rule 3, the court can grant an ex-parte injunction when it is under the belief that the object of the injunction would be defeated because of delay.

Provided that when the court grants injunction without the notice of the application to the other party the court shall record its opinion as to how the object of granting of injunction would be defeated by delay.

Rule 3A- When the court grants injunction without giving notice to the other party, the court shall dispose the application within 30 days of the date of granting injunction.

Order 39, Rule 4 lays down that an injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside, if any dissatisfied party makes an appeal against it, provided that-

• The application for injunction or documents advocating the same included knowingly false or misleading statements and the injunction was granted without listening to the other party. Thus, the court will vacate the injunction. However, it can also stick with the injunction if it considers – the reason is to be recorded – the same not be necessary in the discourse of injustice.
• Furthermore, the court may also set aside the injunction if, due to a change of circumstances, the party against whom the injunction is granted, has suffered unnecessary hardships.

Order 39, Rule 5 makes an important point that-

• If an injunction is granted against a corporation or a firm, the authority of it is not limited to the corporation as an entity alone, members and officers of the corporation whose personal action it seeks to restrain are also included under its ambit.

Interlocutory Orders

Order 39, Rule 6 talks about the power to hold an interim sale.

The court may order the sale of any movable property being the subject matter of the suit. Furthermore, these movable properties also include such things which are subject to natural delay and will be rendered futile if not sold swiftly.

Order 39, Rule 7 talks about the detention or inspection of the subject matter of the suit.

Essentially, the court may order any individual to retain, preserve or inspect the property of dispute. The court may pass such an order specific observations or experiments upon the disputed land if it were to deem it necessary for the purpose of obtaining complete information.

Order 39, Rule 8 claims that an order under rule 6 and 7 will only be passed if:

• The applicant applies for the order after the institution of the suit.
• The applicant provides notice of the application to the parties involved in the suit.
• The other parties of the suit have been given a fair chance to argue against the interim order.

However, the rule is subject to the exception that if the hearing would cause delay leading to the loss of the objective of the suit.

Order 39, Rule 9 talks in relation to an instance if land paying revenue is the subject matter of the suit.

 It speaks about if an individual neglect paying his government revenue or the rent to his proprietor, then the court may order the sale of the land or tenure, as the case may be, to any party interested in buying that said land or tenure. The proceeds from the sale can be used to compensate the defaults in the payment of the rent. Furthermore, the party who was interested in buying the property, by the decree of the court, can be compensated by the defaulter.

Order 39, Rule 10 talks about dispute over money or any item which is capable of delivery.

If in the dispute, a party claims to have the trusteeship of the disputed item, then the court may order that item to be deposited in the able hands of the court until the dispute is resolved.